The Global Drug Policy Program and Release are proud to invite applications to the 

2016 Asia & Africa Advocacy Fellowship Program on Drug Policy Reform

. Fellows will be hosted by and at Release in London, the UK’s center of expertise on drugs and drugs law. This program supports those working in sectors related to drug policy in order to increase their understanding of international drug policy reform issues, improve their advocacy skills, and enhance their capacity in working with the media on drug policy. The fellowship seeks to increase the capacity of emerging and new leaders in drug policy reform, including people not necessarily working full-time on drug-related issues.

The objectives of the fellowship include the following:

increase their knowledge of global drug policy reform issues on a region-by-region approach

increase their understanding of the international drug control system and conflicts with other United Nations priorities

have a greater awareness of the drug policy reform landscape and key figures within that movement

establish links with those working in drug policy, particularly in the UK

build and develop their communications skills, including for media interviews, press releases, press databases, public speaking

have an understanding of the tools for debate, so that they can confidently challenge anti-reform positions

improve their confidence as drug policy advocates both through participation in the program and through ongoing support from the host organization

Successful candidates will have a track-record of public engagement in the issues of drug policy reform or another relevant field (e.g., public health) at the local, national, or international levels.

Applications are welcome from those working across numerous fields related to drug policy. Previous fellows have worked in drug policy NGOs, at law enforcement agencies, in national governments, in health care facilities, and at universities, among other organizations. Please note that before receiving the fellowship, finalists will be asked to present a letter from their employer agreeing to their two-week participation in the course.

The purpose of this program is to promote the capacities of both new advocates and individuals who are emerging leaders in drug policy reform. Starting in 2016, employees of organizations currently receiving support from the Open Society Foundations are eligible to apply for the fellowship.

Keep up-to-date with drug policy developments by subscribing to the IDPC Monthly Alert.

Asia & Africa advocacy fellowship program on drug policy reform

The mountains meet the Indian Ocean on the Wild Coast. At Ebulawu, south of Port St Johns, green-topped peaks undulate up towards sheer drops into the blue maelstrom below, where waves crash against cliffs of white, grey and red.

Vines hang heavy on centuries-old trees. The vegetation's lush hypnotism is a reminder that this is psychotropic territory in every sense. The descent into the ravines takes us down paths darkened by impenetrable tree canopies.

Forests give way to clearings, which give way to squares of crops - and back again. Navigating down the steep inclines, one is soon walking in fields of marijuana, where stalks are star-spangled with leaves and crystalline flowering buds. Some plants are shoulder high, others are stunted by drought.

Ebulawu is one of the heartlands of Pondoland marijuana. These are fields of green.

 cultivated at Ebulawu have been famous for generations. Locals, tourists, visiting fishermen and dealers have been buying, smoking and selling the marijuana for decades. Some locals barter their crops for anything from food to appliances. Customers come from as far away as Pretoria and Cape Town to buy bulk for resale.

"My grandfather planted before me, I remember he planted three or four mountains away from here," says Michael*, 62, pointing northward. "My father didn't plant at all. I didn't either, until I came back from the mines in 1989."

Michael had been working as a miner in Welkom when he was retrenched. He says one day his benefit pay-outs stopped - with no explanation. To supplement an income from catching and selling fish to tourists - and to support his nine children - Michael began growing marijuana.

Employment in the area is limited to cleaning the cottages that white tourists and anglers have built on land obtained on long-lease from local chiefs, sometimes in exchange for alcohol and a feast for the village. Or selling the abundant harvest of fish, mussels and shellfish to tourists - the going rate for a whole steenbras the length of one's forearm, says Michael, is about R50.

There are no other jobs in this lush paradise. Men will go to the mines if they can, committing themselves to the penury of hard migrant labour, only seeing their families two or three times a year. Women will tend the fields growing mealies, spinach, cabbage and vegetables for subsistence. Money for clothes, school uniforms and books or cellphone airtime comes from social grants, seafood sales - and marijuana.

Killing the economic lifeblood of the Eastern Cape's weed-producing people

The first country in the world to legalize marijuana sales was Uruguay, a tiny South American nation with a population of only 3.3 million wedged between Brazil and Argentina.

Uruguay fully legalized the production and sale of marijuana in December 2013 after a decade-long grassroots movement headed by mostly middle-class consumers managed to convince the government it was safer to legally sell weed rather than to allow drug dealers to run the market.

The system now in place grants licenses to private producers for large-scale cannabis farming and regulates its distribution at a controlled price of about one dollar a gram through pharmacies to registered consumers.

Private individuals are also allowed up to six plants at home. Larger amounts can be grown at “cannabis clubs” where individuals band together to produce marijuana in greater quantities as long as it is not for sale.

Legal sales through pharmacies are expected to begin in the second half of this year. Earlier this month the government opened the registry for pharmacists wishing to sell legal weed. These must install fingerprint recognition software to identify consumers as well as wall-mounted safety boxes to protect the maximum two kilos of marijuana each pharmacy will be allowed to maintain in stock.

Consumers must register with the government and will be allowed to purchase 10 grams per week.

Private consumption of drugs of any kind – including heroin and cocaine – was never actually banned by law in this atypically liberal South American nation, but the commercial production of marijuana was prohibited until the new law three years ago.

Uruguay's legal marijuana policy en route to next phase of regulation

Countries agree on outcome document for adoption at UNGASS 2016

VIENNA, 23 March (UN Information Service) - The 59th Session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) closed today with a reminder of the UN General Assembly Special Session on the world drug problem (UNGASS 2016) to be held in April this year.

"The 59th Session was especially important given that we now stand on the threshold of UNGASS 2016, which is to be held in New York next month," said the Executive Director of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Yury Fedotov, in his closing remarks.

Commenting on the finalisation by Member States of the outcome document, he said, "I warmly welcome the agreement on the outcome document to be adopted at UNGASS 2016 in New York in April. The document can now be used to forge the action needed to assist millions of women, children, and men around the world."

"I also see this April's UNGASS as a moment in time to create the necessary cooperation to address the world drug problem, to link our activities to the UN's overall work of achieving sustainable development, and to build momentum towards 2019 and the review of the Political Declaration and Plan of Action on the world drug problem," said Mr. Fedotov.

Mr. Fedotov expressed his thanks to the representatives of member states for their efforts during the deliberations. "You have laboured long and hard to build a constructive dialogue. I applaud these endeavours," said Mr. Fedotov.

A number of resolutions, including the outcome document for UNGASS, were passed at the 59th Session of the CND on matters ranging from mainstreaming gender perspectives into drug-related policies and programmes, to development and dissemination of the international standards of treatment of drug use disorders. Other topics of the resolutions passed included alternative development, and strategies for improving health and social wellbeing.

Seven substances were also scheduled under the international drug control conventions by the CND following recommendations by the World Health Organization's Expert Committee on Drug Dependence.

Over 70 side-events and more than 30 exhibitions were held during the 59th Session, which was attended by more than 1,500 people representing member states, civil society, academia and international organizations.

In closing his remarks, Mr. Fedotov told delegates, "I look forward to meeting you again in New York next month at UNGASS 2016 as you continue the vital work of enhancing global approaches to international drug policy."

Click here to access the press release online.

59th CND Session closes with eye on April's UNGASS 2016

Today, the United States Supreme Court declined to hear the case brought by Nebraska and Oklahoma against Colorado over its marijuana legalization law. Oklahoma and Nebraska had claimed the Colorado law had created an increased law enforcement burden in neighboring states. The suit, filed by Nebraska Attorney General John Bruning and Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, claimed that federal marijuana prohibition preempts the law that Colorado voters decisively adopted in 2012. The Federal Government filed a brief urging the high court to reject the case.

Statement from Tamar Todd, Director, Office of Legal Affairs of the Drug Policy Alliance:

“The Supreme Court’s rejection of this misguided effort to undo cautious and effective state-level regulation of marijuana is excellent news for the many other states looking to adopt similar reforms in 2016 and beyond. Other states are looking to what Colorado has accomplished: the drops in racially disparate arrests, the criminal justice dollars saved, and the tax revenue raised and want to adopt similar marijuana law reforms. The dismissal of this action means that the four states that have adopted ballot initiatives by decisive margins to tax and regulate marijuana for adults, as well as the many states that have adopted laws to regulate medical marijuana, can proceed without interference at this time.

“The Federal government itself filed a brief with the high court asking that it not hear this case. It has not challenged the regulatory law in Colorado nor did it choose to interfere with its implementation. To the contrary, the government has deprioritized enforcement of state-level marijuana reforms and acknowledged the interests that both states and the Federal government have in openly regulating marijuana.”

Supreme court rejects Nebraska and Oklahoma lawsuit over Colorado marijuana legalisation

The so-called War on Drugs has been lost. So what now?

That’s the vexing question United Nations member states have been grappling with over the past 10 weeks, as they have engaged in intense negotiations over the future of the international response to drugs, in preparation for a UN General Assembly special session in April.

Confronted with the fact that policies pursued over the last 50 years have failed to “eliminate or significantly reduce” illicit drugs, countries are drawing wildly differing conclusions. For some, it is time to try something new; for others, it’s to double down on the criminal law enforcement approach. On opposite sides of this debate are countries like Uruguay – open to legalization and regulation of marijuana – and Russia, which opposes even references to a previously agreed – and spectacularly missed – global goal to reduce drug-related HIV transmission.

Health and human rights are at the center of this polarized debate. The UN drug control conventions were established, along with the UN Office on Drugs and Crime and the International Narcotics Control Board, out of concern for the harms drugs can do to the “health and welfare of mankind.” But with a growing body of evidence highlighting the negative impacts on health and human rights of an over reliance on a criminal law enforcement-based response to drugs a critical question has arisen: What does more harm – drugs themselves or the response to them?

In the run-up to the April meeting, Human Rights Watch will publish a series of articles examining the range of serious human rights abuses – from torture and killings in the name of drug control to disproportionate and arbitrary imprisonment of drug users to denying cancer patients access to morphine for pain – the War on Drugs has caused. Ending these abuses need to be at the center of the deliberations at the UN General Assembly session on drugs.

The war on drugs – A cure worse than the disease

At around 23:00 delegations left informal negotiations agreeing on a final outcome document. Switzerland made a reservation, pending on approval of the government, on the preambular paragraph 7 mentioning a society free of drug abuse, wanting to include a mention on responding to the public health and social problems resulting from drug abuse. While the intention was to present a short and concise outcome document with operational recommendations, a 24 page document was presented at the Plenary.

The EU, supported by among others Turkey, Switzerland, Canada, Costa Rica, Mexico, Colombia and Chile, gave a statement about the failure to include language opposing the death penalty, regretting that the document did not include language about the abolition of the death penalty and called on countries to adopt a moratorium on the execution of the death penalty. Brazil, New Zealand, Australia and Norway made a similar statement. Indonesia made a statement that there is no consensus on the abolition of the death penalty and that the issue is not part of the mandate of the CND, and is a criminal justice matter of sovereign states, supported by China, Pakistan, Egypt, Malaysia and almost all Arabic states.

Colombia, Mexico, Guatemala, Ecuador,Panama, Switzerland and others made a statement that although the outcome document is a step forward, because of the consensus process some issues were not included and called for a broad comprehensive approach towards 2019 and beyond, paying particular attention to the 2030 SDG targets. China pointed to the emerging challenges of NPS.
Reform minded delegations think there is sufficient progress to build on towards the evaluation of the 1998 UNGASS at the High Level Segment in 2019. The document mentions persistent, new and evolving challenges to be addressed in conformity with the three international drug conventions, which allow for sufficient flexibility to State parties to design and implement national drug policies. It does not mention harm reduction but there is mention of appropriate medication-assisted therapy and injecting equipment programmes, the new diplo-speak for opioid assisted therapy and needle and syringe exchange.

TNI at CND 2016: Reports from Vienna

From April 19–21, global leaders will meet for the first time in 18 years to debate global drug policy at the U.N. General Assembly Special Session on the World Drug Problem in New York. As soon as this week, the 59th session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs will have the opportunity to decide whether the U.N. session will truly be “special” in achieving tangible results – or not.

 special in bringing strong outputs based on reality, the global regime will incorporate human rights and public health into current drug policies. Weak and blurred outputs would mean that the same regime has proved unable to adapt itself to the changing world and is doomed to collapse.

The special session on drugs is gathering at the request of three Latin American countries that are suffering from the war on drugs: In Mexico alone, the number of homicides related to the war on drugs exceeds the number of casualties of the wars in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan combined. And yet, all around the world, we see results of the dysfunctional drug control regime: “Illegal drugs” were never as available or cheap or used as much as they are today.

The war on drugs is not only a problem for developing countries. To rely on tough prohibition is far too expensive even for the wealthiest nations. As President Obama recently noted, the war on drugs has been “very unproductive.” Indeed, it is causing even more crime than it seeks to prevent and diverts limited law enforcement resources from urgent issues, no matter whether the country is wealthy or not. Looking back, we can see our current situation is promising: While President Nixon declared a “war on drugs” in 1969, and President Reagan further expanded drug control measures outside the US, the current U.S. commander-in-chief clearly understands that this war should have ended long ago. Now we need to see that this rhetoric is followed by energetic action.

So far, we have seen minimal amounts of progressive language in the working versions of the output document to be debated and adopted at the U.N. special session on drugs. Interestingly, those countries experimenting most intensively with different drug control regimes are silent on the conflict between their progress and the current structure and interpretations of the U.N. conventions on drugs.

This applies, first of all, to the U.S., with four of its states and even its capital city legalizing recreational marijuana – the most widespread illegal drug – and with another four to nine states expected to do so in 2016. Make no mistake: The global drug policy is the responsibility of the whole global community. However, the U.S. is the only superpower to have invented, promoted and globally exported the war on drugs.

A global cold war on drugs

By Vanda Felbab-Brown, Harold Trinkunas and Sultan Barakat

This April, the U.N. General Assembly will meet for a Special Session on the World Drug Problem. After decades of conformity with a hardline “war on drugs” formerly promoted by the United States, there is increasing dissensus within the international community about how to best address the costs and harms posed by drugs. For years, some European countries have quietly diverged from policies based on aggressive suppression of drug production and the criminalization of users. More recently, some key Latin American states have openly challenged the global counternarcotics regime and called for reforms.

Yet the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) states still cling to hardline drug policies, an approach that is also supported by Russia and many Asian countries.

On March 7 in Doha, we met with police and military officials, NGO representatives, and academics from across the Middle East to discuss the rising drug challenges in the region and the increasingly contested global regime. We found the Middle East and North Africa are grappling with intensifying drug problem—increased use, spread of drug-related communicable diseases, and widening linkages between drug production and smuggling and violent conflict and terrorism. And there is a growing sense that the repressive policies against illicit drugs long-applied in the region have not been effective in counteracting these negative trends.

Breaking bad in the Middle East and North Africa: Drugs, militants, and human rights 

The Psychoactive Substances Act, which was criticised for being so vague it could ban things as benign as scented pillows, does not proscribe alkyl nitrates, a drug particularly popular among gay men. But the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) has told the Home Office poppers are not covered by the Act as they do not work by “stimulating or depressing the central nervous system”.

“The ACMD’s consensus view is that a psychoactive substance has a direct action on the brain and that substances having peripheral effects, such as those caused by alkyl nitrites, do not directly stimulate or depress the central nervous system,” the experts wrote in their advice.

Campaigners welcomed the news, which many had feared would unduly target the gay community.

Niamh Eastwood, Executive Director of Release, the UK centre of expertise on drugs and drug laws, told HuffPost UK she was not surprised at ACMD’s conclusions. She said Release’s legal experts believed no substance fell under the Act’s remit because of its poorly-worded definition. She said Home Office Minister Mike Penning had “repeatedly” told parliament that poppers would be banned under the Act and said the latest news showed it was “most likely unenforceable”. She added: “The ACMD’s advice today could not be any clearer, poppers are not psychoactive and do not fall within the Act. “This comes as no surprise, this legislation is badly drafted, most likely unenforceable and may result in greater harms as has happened in Ireland and Poland where similar law has been enacted.”

The Act enables the Home Secretary to declare certain substances exempt but the ACMD recommended this was not necessary as poppers were not psychoactive, according to the Act’s definition, to begin with.

Poppers are popular as a muscle relaxant, often to facilitate sex.

During a reading on the Bill in the House of Commons, MP Crispin Blunt, who recently came out as gay, outed himself as a user of the drug.

Poppers can’t fall under legal highs ban as they’re not psychoactive, experts tell government

The ‘war on drugs’ has not only failed in its aim to rid the world of illicit drugs, it is fuelling poverty and violence, undermining access to health, and harming some of the poorest and most marginalised communities worldwide. It’s time to rethink.

We’re calling for a new approach to drug policy, which puts people’s health and rights first.

Rethink drug policy

Iran's government has been putting a lot of people to death.

The Islamic Republic executed nearly 1,000 prisoners last year, marking a high in the number of executions in the country in more than 20 years, and making it the country with the highest number of executions per capita in the world, according to a new UN report.

Issued by the UN's special rapporteur on human rights in Iran, the report said that the majority of those executed were put to death for drug-related offenses.

There was a "staggering surge in the execution of at least 966 prisoners last year — the highest rate in over two decades," UN Special Rapporteur Ahmed Shaheed said at a press conference on Thursday. A former foreign minister of the Maldives, Shaheed has never been allowed into Iran, but his report was based on 128 interviews with Iranians abroad and in the country.

"Under Iran's current drug laws, possession of 30 grams of heroin or cocaine would qualify for the death penalty," he said. "So there's a number of draconian laws."

People can be put to death for a range of 17 drug crimes, including armed smuggling, movement of drugs in prisons, or hiring people while conspiring to break anti-narcotics laws.

More than 500 people executed in 2015, or about 65 percent of those executed, were convicted of such crimes, many of them nonviolent.

At least four juveniles were among those executed, while 160 remain on death row, according to the report. Iranian law stipulates that girls as young as nine years old can be put to death, and boys as young as 15.

The Islamic Republic defended the executions by saying that "severe punishments meted out to large[-scale] drug traffickers have brought about considerable reduction in the harm resulting from the flow of drugs to Iran and beyond."

The report applauded the Iranian law that requires the country's Supreme Court to review all death sentences, but said it was concerned about the lack of due process and fair trial rights, including "long periods of incommunicado and pretrial detention, and lack of adequate access to a lawyer and/or to a proper defense."

It noted that drug offenders are often "subjected to beatings and coerced confessions which are later used in revolutionary courts to secure their death sentences. In some cases judges reportedly convicted and sentenced drug offenders to death based on their 'intuition,' and despite what appeared to be a lack of evidence."

The Iranian government was given the opportunity to review the rapporteur's findings and to have its replies included in the report. It refuted the assertions and said the reference to judges convicting suspects on "intuition" was "false and biased."

News